Tag Archives: environment

Kids in Wrightsville Beach are now free to possess balloons, but will be fined $250 if they accidentally release them.

An attempt to the criminalize possession of balloons in a N.C. beach town has been shot down. However, Wrightsville Beach aldermen say anyone who fails to hold on to their balloon(s) will get slapped with a $250 fine.

On Nov. 25, the Nanny State Liberation Front was among the first to report that Wrightsville Beach aldermen, by a 3-2 vote, criminalized the “possession and/or release of inflated balloons on the local beachfront.”

If anyone can provide some local sea turtle casualty statistics to justify the $250 fine for intentionally or accidentally releasing balloons, sound-off below. We just haven’t read about any statistical evidence of the alleged atrocities — it’s all been emotional rhetoric coming from the aldermen, so that’s why we’re curious.

Depending on what state you live in, you may be paying taxes on your energy bill to help stop global warming. That’s right, you may have been enlisted as a soldier in the war against climate change and you may not even know it! And as a soldier in this war, depending on your state’s policies you have no choice whether to fight or not … I wonder how many millions of people around the country pay their utility bills each month and have no idea what they are funding?

Ultimately, the Enviro-Statists would love for farmers and truckers to return to their roots.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released an extremely vague press release, but one thing was clear: Consumer prices will rise in 2014 due to rigid new emissions standards targeting America’s truckers and farmers.

Beginning in model year 2014, new heavy-duty trucks and tractors must be fitted with environmentally-friendly engines that achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. That means truck and tractor manufacturers will be forced to spend millions in research and design and pass the cost on to their customers who will — you guessed it — pass that cost on to American consumers, unless you believe what Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is saying:

“This is a win-win-win for the environment, businesses and the American consumer.”

Wishful thinking by LaHood, but nowhere in the press release does he spell out the real costs to America’s truckers and farmers who will soon have no choice other than to purchase these federally-mandated eco-friendly big rigs and tractors. LaHood, however, hypothesizes:

With the potential for significant fuel efficiency gains, ranging from seven to 20 percent, drivers and operators could expect to net significant savings over the long-term. For example, it is estimated an operator of a semi truck could pay for the technology upgrades in under a year, and save as much as $74,000 over the truck’s useful life. Vehicles with lower annual miles would typically experience longer payback periods, up to four or five years, but would still reap cost-savings.

Hey, Ray! Enough with the guessing games and speculation! Tell truckers and farmers how much they will actually pay for these new ‘green’ trucks and tractors. You were kind enough to note that they’d likely be going in to the red during at least the first year of ownership, meaning they won’t likely turn profits unless they jack-up their prices for transporting consumer goods and harvesting crops.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson also fails to look at the bigger picture that could unfold in 2014 and beyond if these new emissions standards make the cost of business for truckers and farmers too much to bear, and ultimately, puts them out of business:

“These new standards are another step in our work to develop a new generation of clean, fuel-efficient American vehicles that will improve our environment and strengthen our economy,” EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said. “In addition to cutting greenhouse gas pollution, greater fuel economy will shrink fuel costs for small businesses that depend on pick ups and heavy duty vehicles, shipping companies and cities and towns with fleets of these vehicles. Those savings can be invested in new jobs at home, rather than heading overseas and increasing our dependence on foreign oil.”

Again, wishful thinking by another big government bureaucrat for a best case scenario in which truckers and farmers can afford to purchase expensive new trucks and tractors that may or may not ‘pay for themselves’ over the years to follow.

Soviet-style food shopping coming in 2014?

The underlying fact is that American consumers will ultimately pay the price for the new emissions technology LaHood and Jackson are pushing, and right now, in this economy, that’s not a very enlightening scenario. And, if consumers are not willing to or can not afford to foot the bill for increased costs of everyday necessities –including food, toilet paper and oil transported by truckers — well, things are going to get ugly pretty quick.

NOTE: “NHTSA and EPA will jointly hold two public hearings: one in Chicago on November 15, 2010, and one in Boston on November 18, 2010. Sessions may end earlier than scheduled if everyone has had a chance to speak.” Those two dates are your only opportunities to make your voice heard, according to the EPA. Chances are you won’t be able to attend, so make sure your congressman and senators know what’s at stake for consumers, truckers and farmers.

Enviro-statist dictators want citizens to ditch progress and power tools.

The last time we heard from the nanny state bureaucrats in Coral Gables, Fla., they were busy defending a pick-up truck ban in court, which they won. Now, the ritzy city vying for the title of San Francisco East is trying to ban leafblowers right when residents need them most.

“Some people look at leaf blowers as a necessity. I look at it as a convenience,” City Commissioner Ralph Cabrera told The Miami Herald. “When people say they won’t be able to keep their lawns tidy, I ask them, ‘How did the world stay tidy and clean before leaf blowers? It did.'”

Jose Perez, owner of a local landscaping company, said a leaf blower ban would force him to hire more workers to rake customers’ lawns and each job would take much longer to complete. As a result, he said he’d have to charge customers more for his company’s services.

“Honestly, it’s funny because I really think the government should be worrying about other things right now instead of leaf blowers,” Perez said.

Tired of enviro-statist dictators trying to reverse progress and send us back to the Pre-Industrial era so we can live like early American settlers? Join the Nanny State Liberation Front and strike back against big government bureaucrats who only embrace ‘progress’ and ‘change’ when it makes you subservient to them.

No more cruises, but you can still fly a jumbo jet to Antarctica! Go figure.

If you’ve ever considered taking a cruise to Antarctica, now is the time to do it. Beginning Aug. 1, 2011, large cruise ships will be banned from Antarctic waters because the “heavy” fuel they carry poses risks to penguins, seals, polar bears, whales, glaciers, icebergs and the chilly seas.

The Miami Herald reports that Princess Cruises, Oceania and Regent will be making their final voyages to the region in 2010 while Holland America plans to modify its fuel to something more environmentally-friendly, should their ships sink. Celebrity Cruises says it will switch its fuel, as well, but only if legally required.

“The reasoning is that a spillage of this type of fuel is considered too much of a risk—and accidents do happen, as we witnessed in 2007, when Gap Adventures’ M/S Explorer was holed by ice and sank,” explains the South Atlantic News Agency.

Interestingly, a 2007 post-accident report from the International Association of Antarctic Tour Operators (IAATO) explained that the M/S Explorer sinking posed “no adverse affects on the environment.”

Here we go again with another draconian ban that stops business dead in its tracks. Countless human beings have been killed in transportation accidents over the past century, yet not once have we seen a ban on airplanes, automobiles, motorcycles, boats or bicycles. Now, when an oil rig or cruise ship sinks, all business is drawn to a grinding halt as to never endanger wildlife ever again.

Chime-in below with your explanation for why and how enviro-statists are able to get away with this.

Stop-and-go traffic could get a lot more annoying in Salt Lake City when the '2-minute rule' goes into effect.

Idle more than two minutes in Salt Lake City, Utah, and you could face a fine up to $410. City officials are pondering a law that will target parents waiting to pick-up their kids from school and other motorists standing idle in so-called “hot zones” where vehicle emissions are blamed for diminishing air quality.

An anti-idling ordinance is currently under review by city council members and could go in to effect as early as this winter, The Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Mayor Ralph Becker’s crackdown on over-idling would exclude idling police cars, hybrid vehicles, refrigerated trucks and vehicles that require engines remain idling for “safety or health” purposes. Vehicles idling in citizens’ driveways are also exempt, for now, but that’s likely to change when the ordinance is enacted.

Councilman Soren Simonsen boasted that he and his fellow big government bureaucrats aren’t concerned about telling citizens what they can and can not do on their private property, so targeting cars idling on private driveways doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, he says.

“We certainly regulate a lot of things on private property,” Simonsen said. “I don’t think it’s a legal question; it’s just how much of a chunk do we want to bite off.”

Agree or disagree with the proposed ordinance to monitor and crackdown on citizens’ idling time, including when it occurs on their private property such as driveways and garages?